1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 April 2021 b. Date Received: 26 April 2021 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The current characterization of service for the period under review is bad conduct. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, applicant's discharge was inequitable due to it was based on one isolated incident which occurred after applicant's redeployment back from Iraq with no adverse actions. Recently applicant was diagnosed with PTSD by the Department of Veterans Affairs and tried to seek treatment. Due to Chapter 17 of Title 38, U.S.C dated 7 June 2015, applicant was not entitled to health care due to the characterization of applicant's discharge. The VA is also basing the service from 26 June 2001 to 27 June 2008. Applicant's initial contract was from 26 June 2001 to 30 June 2004 in where applicant out-processed from Fort Hood, TX after returning from deployment and received an Honorable Discharge. In applicant's file there is a Service Verification Letter which states under other than honorable conditions. In order for applicant to be placed in the proper environment to receive the proper medical treatment, counseling, and therapy for applicant's PTSD the VA will only provide under the characterization of Honorable. Applicant has been prescribed Gabapentin and Bupropion for anxiety and depression and the VA will not fill nor provide any prescriptions and services to applicant due to applicant's BCD. Applicant humbly asks for an upgrade to honorable to receive the proper medical treatment from the VA for applicant's PTSD. The applicant states applicant has worked for and supported United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait after applicant's enlistment date as a civilian. Applicant has truly served the Army well and taken applicant's experiences and applied it to civilian life. In a records review conducted on 1 March 2022, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 9 of this document for more detail regarding the Board's decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Court-Martial, Desertion / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJC / RE-4 / Bad Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 27 June 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Pursuant to Special Court-Martial Empowered to Adjudge a Bad-Conduct Discharge: As announced by Special Court-Martial Order Number 2, dated 9 November 2006, on 3 November 2005, the applicant was found guilty of the following: Charge I, in violation of Article 80: Plea: None Entered. Finding: Dismissed by Judge per suppression motion prior to pleadings. Charge II: Article 85. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge II was renumbered as Charge I. Specification: Did, on or about 5 May 2004, without authority and with the intent to remain away therefrom permanently, absent them self from applicant's unit, to wit: C Company, 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (M), located at Fort Hood, Texas, and did remain so absent in desertion until applicant was apprehended on or about 2 July 2005. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge Ill: Article 121. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Charge Ill was renumbered as Charge II. Specification 1: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, between on or about 1 April 2004 and on or about 5 April 2004, steal three Bank of America checks numbered 123,124, and 125, of some value, the property of SPC P. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 2: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 16 April 2004, steal one Fort Hood National Bank starter check of some value, the property of PFC H. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Specification 3: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 28 April 2004, steal a Bank of America check book, of some value, the property of SPC P. Plea: None Entered. Finding: Dismissed by Judge per suppression motion prior to pleading. Specification 4: Did, at or near Arlington, Texas, on or about 5 April 2004, steal $800.00 in United States currency, the property of SPC P. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Not Guilty of larceny but Guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted larceny in violation of Article 80. Original Charge III, Specifications 4 through 8 were renumbered as 3 through 7, respectively. Specification 5: Did, at or near Arlington, Texas, on or about 8 April 2004, steal $1200.00 in United States currency, the property of SPC. P. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Not Guilty of larceny but Guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted larceny in violation of Article 80. Original Charge Ill, Specifications 4 through 8 were renumbered as 3 through 7, respectively Specification 6: Did, at or near Arlington, Texas, on or about 10 April 2004, steal $800.00 in United States currency, the property of SPC P. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty of lesser included offense of attempt. Original Charge 111, Specifications 4 through 8 were renumbered as 3 through 7, respectively. Specification 7: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 16 April 2004, steal $587.00 in United States currency, the property of PFC W. H. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Original Charge Ill, Specifications 4 through 8 were renumbered as 3 through 7, respectively Specification 8: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 20 April 2004, steal $200.00 in United States currency, the property of PFC H. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Original Charge III, Specifications 4 through 8 were renumbered as 3 through 7, respectively. Charge IV: Article 123. Plea: None Entered. Finding: Dismissed. Original charge IV was renumbered as Charge Ill. Specification 1: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 14 April 2004, with intent to defraud, falsely alter a DFAS Form 702, Feb 94, in the following figures to wit: "52.5", by manipulating the figures thereto to read "67.5", which said form would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of another. Plea: None Entered. Finding: Dismissed. On the defense's motions, the military judge ruled that the Original Charge IV, Specification 1 was unreasonable multiplication of charges and merged with Original Charge V, Specification 2. Specification 2: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 5 April 2004, with intent to defraud, falsely make, in its entirety, the signature of SPC P. to Bank of America check number 123, which said check would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of SPC P. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Original Charge IV, Specifications 2 through 5 were renumbered as 1 through 4, respectively, after Specification 1 was merged. Specification 3: Did, at or near Fort Hood or Arlington, Texas, on or about 7 April 2004, with intent to defraud, falsely make, in its entirety, the signature of SPC P. to Bank of America check number 124, which said check would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of SPC P. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Original Charge IV, Specifications 2 through 5 were renumbered as 1 through 4, respectively, after Specification 1 was merged. Specification 4: Did, at or near Fort Hood or Arlington, Texas, on or about 9 April 2004, with intent to defraud, falsely make, in its entirety, the signature of SPC P, to Bank of America check number 125, which said check would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of SPC P. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Original Charge IV, Specifications 2 through 5 were renumbered as 1 through 4, respectively, after Specification 1 was merged. Specification 5: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 19 April 2004, with intent to defraud, falsely make, in its entirety, the signature of PFC H., to a Fort Hood National Bank starter check, which said check would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of PFC W. L. H. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Guilty. Original Charge IV, Specifications 2 through 5 were renumbered as 1 through 4, respectively, after Specification 1 was merged Specification 6: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 29 April 2004, with intent to defraud, falsely make, in its entirety the signature of SPC P. to Bank of America check number 120, of the said SPC P., which said check would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of SPC P., Plea: None Entered. Finding: Dismissed by Judge per suppression motion prior to pleadings. Specification 7: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 29 April 2004, with intent to defraud, falsely make, in its entirety the signature of SPC S. A. P. to Bank of America check number 119, which said check would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of SPC P., Plea: None Entered. Finding: Dismissed by Judge per suppression motion prior to pleadings. Specification 8: Did, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on or about 1 May 2004, with intent to defraud, falsely make, in its entirety the signature of SPC P. to Bank of America check number 109, which said check would, if genuine, apparently operate to the legal harm of SPC P. Plea: None Entered. Finding: Dismissed by Judge per suppression motion prior to pleadings. Charge V: Article 132. Plea: None Entered. Finding: Dismissed. Original Charge V was renumbered as Charge IV. Charge VI: Article 134. Plea: None Entered. Finding: Dismissed by Judge per suppression motion prior to pleadings. (2) Adjudged Sentence: Reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $548 pay per month for four months; to be confined for four months, and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge. (3) Date/Sentence Approved: 9 November 2006, a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $548 pay per month for four months; to be confined for four months, was approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, would be executed. The applicant was credited with 16 days of confinement towards the sentence to confinement. (4) Appellate Reviews: The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on consideration of the entire record, they hold the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved by the convening authority correct in law and fact. Accordingly, those finding of guilty and the sentence affirmed. (5) Date Sentence of BCD Ordered Executed: 6 November 2008 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 June 2001 / 3 years / The applicant extended applicant's ETS date by two months, giving applicant a new date of 27 October 2005. / The applicant was extended for 470 days at the convenience of the government. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 5 years, 7 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 26 June 2001 - 30 June 2004 / HD / The applicant submitted a DD Form 214 for this period of service. e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial Order Number 2 as described in previous paragraph 3c. Five Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 5 May 2004; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 4 June 2004; From "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 7 July 2005; From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" effective 3 November 2005; and, From "Confined by Military Authorities (CMA)" to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 23 January 2006. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1 year, 4 months, 15 days AWOL, 5 May 2005 - 1 July 2005 / Returned to Military Control CMA, 3 November 2005 - 22 January 2006 / Release from Confinement j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant submitted a Disability Benefits Questionnaire dated 14 December 2019, reflecting the symptoms that apply to the applicant diagnoses: Depress mood; Anxiety; Suspiciousness; Chronic sleep impairment. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 214; Two DD Forms 293; Two letters of support; Three Certificates of Appreciation; VA Letter; Four Certificates of Achievement; Two Master Certificates; SGLV 8286; DD Form 93 ERB. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant stated applicant was employed overseas and supported the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. Applicant completed two Master Certifications. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities' last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), dated 25 September 2019, sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember's date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for separation specifically allows such characterization. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under other-than-honorable-conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Paragraph 3-10 states a Soldier will be given a dishonorable discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Questions concerning the finality of appellate review should be referred to the servicing SJA. (6) Paragraph 3-11 states a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Questions concerning the finality of appellate review should be referred to the servicing SJA. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JJCD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, Court-Martial, Desertion. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waivable and nonwaivable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years' active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a special court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Special Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The applicant provided a Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 14 December 2019, reflecting the symptoms that apply to the applicant diagnoses: Depress mood; Anxiety; Suspiciousness; Chronic sleep impairment. The AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends applicant's Service Verification Letter states under other than honorable conditions. In order for applicant to be placed in the proper environment to receive the proper medical treatment, counseling, and therapy for applicant's PTSD the VA will only provide under the characterization of Honorable. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits are different than used by the Army when determining a member's discharge. The applicant's AMHRR is void of a mental status evaluation. The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The applicant contends having obtained employment oversea as a contractor and helped to support the mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize the applicant's good conduct after leaving the Army. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD that could mitigate applicant's basis of separation. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD related to in-service stressors. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The Board's Medical Advisor, after applying liberal consideration, opined that although the applicant's PTSD partially mitigates applicant's Bad Conduct of going AWOL as AWOL is part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD, stealing, attempted larceny, stealing currency, and fraud, are not mitigated because this misconduct is not part of the sequela of symptoms associated with PTSD and instead this wrongful conduct is conscious, willful, made over time with sustained effort to avoid detection. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. Despite the Board's application of liberal consideration, the Board concurred with the opinion of the Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends being diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed and liberally considered the DoD and VA medical records and found the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD but determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant's PTSD outweighed the unmitigated basis for applicant's separation. (2) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (3) The applicant contends good service, including a combat tour. The Board determined the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By stealing, attempted larceny, stealing currency, and fraud, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (4) The applicant contends having obtained employment oversea as a contractor and helped to support the mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. The Board considered this contention and determined the contention did not warrant any change to the discharge. (5) The applicant contends applicant's Service Verification Letter states under other than honorable conditions. In order for applicant to be placed in the proper environment to receive the proper medical treatment, counseling, and therapy for applicant's PTSD the VA will only provide under the characterization of Honorable. The Board determined that this contention alone does not warrant an upgrade, the applicant's discharge is both proper and equitable. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. However, the applicant may request a personal appearance hearing to address the issues before the Board. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant's contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant's characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, applicant's PTSD did not outweigh the offenses of stealing, attempted larceny, stealing currency, and fraud, and the discharge was both proper and equitable. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant's reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, and the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge BH - Behavioral Health CG - Company Grade Article 15 CID - Criminal Investigation Division ELS - Entry Level Status FG - Field Grade Article 15 GD - General Discharge HS - High School HD - Honorable Discharge IADT - Initial Active Duty Training MP - Military Police MST - Military Sexual Trauma N/A - Not applicable NCO - Noncommissioned Officer NIF - Not in File NOS - Not Otherwise Specified OAD - Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) - Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF - Official Military Personnel File PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE - Re-entry SCM - Summary Court Martial SPCM - Special Court Martial SPD - Separation Program Designator TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA - Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20210003284 1